Dickson v. Spearman

Filing 12

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 4/9/14 ORDERING that petitioner's January 24, 2014 Rule 59(e) motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 11 ) is denied. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRADFORD DICKSON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-251-LKK-EFB P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

M.E. SPEARMAN,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding without counsel, has filed an application for a writ

18

of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On January 10, 2014, this court dismissed the

19

petition as improperly challenging a decision of a federal district court and as second or

20

successive. See ECF Nos. 7, 9. Judgment was entered on the same date and the case was closed.

21

ECF No. 10. Petitioner now moves to alter the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

22

Procedure 59(e). ECF No. 11. He also requests the appointment of counsel. Id.

23

Under Rule 59(e), three grounds may justify reconsideration: (1) an intervening change in

24

controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to correct clear error or

25

prevent manifest injustice. See Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City of Bakersfield, 634 F. Supp. 656,

26

665 (E.D. Cal. 1986), rev’d in part on other grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied,

27

486 U.S. 1015 (1988); see also 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir.

28

1999); accord School Dist. No. 1J v. AC&S, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993); see also
1

1

Rule 12, Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings. Courts construing Federal Rule of Civil

2

Procedure 59(e) have noted that a motion to reconsider is not a vehicle permitting the

3

unsuccessful party to “rehash” arguments previously presented, or to present “contentions which

4

might have been raised prior to the challenged judgment.” Costello v. United States, 765 F.Supp.

5

1003, 1009 (C.D.Cal. 1991); see also F.D.I.C. v. Meyer, 781 F.2d 1260, 1268 (7th Cir. 1986);

6

Keyes v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 766 F. Supp. 277, 280 (E.D. Pa. 1991). These holdings

7

“reflect[] district courts’ concerns for preserving dwindling resources and promoting judicial

8

efficiency.” Costello, 765 F.Supp. at 1009. Here, petitioner fails to demonstrate circumstances

9

warranting reconsideration. His motion must therefore be denied.

10

In addition, the court takes no on petitioner’s request for the appointment of counsel as

11

this case is now closed. Petitioner is hereby informed that the court will not respond to future

12

filings in this action that are not authorized by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Federal

13

Rules of Appellate Procedure.

14
15
16

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s January 24, 2014 Rule 59(e)
motion to alter the judgment (ECF No. 11) is denied.
DATED: April 9, 2014.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2